by Kevin Barrett (Main Stories, Crescent International Vol. 48, No. 5, Shawwal, 1440)
Deal of the Century is a 1983 Hollywood comedy about crooked arms dealers conspiring to peddle new weapons that “allow for localized and conventional wars that will keep (the global arms industry’s) business viable into the next century.” Thirty-five years later, a non-fictional crooked businessman, Jared Kushner, has borrowed the title for his so-called Middle East peace plan. Is this some kind of sick joke? A bad Hollywood remake? Have Kushner and his accomplices, Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, chosen this title for their so-called peace plan as a snarky acknowledgment that its real purpose is to keep the Zionist war on the Muslim East viable into the next century?
Kushner’s alleged peace plan was obviously set up to fail. It does not offer the bare minimum acceptable to Palestinians: a genuinely sovereign Palestine including all territories stolen by Israel in 1967, with its capital al-Quds, alongside an Israeli acknowledgment of the internationally-recognized Palestinian right of return and a plan — however gradual — for its implementation. Anything less is a non-starter.
Kushner’s plan does not just offer a little less than the above, nor even a lot less. It is a joke. According to Arab officials briefed on the plan, the Zionists would keep and expand their colonies on territories stolen in 1967. They would take all of al-Quds, leaving a few Palestinian neighborhoods on the outskirts. There would be no sovereign Palestinian state. Instead, the Palestinians would be herded into a slightly-expanded Gaza open-air concentration camp including a small portion of the adjacent Egyptian desert that would remain under Egyptian, not Palestinian, control. The resulting constellation of Bantustans would be labeled “New Palestine,” and its residents would have no sovereignty. Instead, they would actually pay their Israeli prison wardens for “protection.”
The “deal” amounts to the liquidation of Palestine and the complete genocide of the Palestinian people. Clearly Kushner’s radical Zionist advisors, Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, know that their plan is not only unviable, but an insult to every Palestinian. The only thing it offers is money — as if the Palestinians, who have fought and sacrificed bravely for their cause for more than a century (losing tens of thousands of martyrs in the process) are willing to prostitute themselves in return for something even worse than humiliating surrender.
Clearly this grossly insulting proposal was designed to be rejected. Its real purpose is to unleash a new round of war justified by the public relations slogan, “We offered the Palestinians a very good deal, so good we called it ‘the deal of the century,’ but those ungrateful Palestinians wouldn’t accept it.” This is precisely what the Zionists have done in the past, notably after the 2000 Camp David Summit, during which they intentionally presented non-viable proposals in order to obtain a Palestinian rejection that would provide PR cover to go ahead with their 9/11 false flag, ruthlessly attempt to crush the Palestinian resistance, and trick the US into invading and destabilizing regional states that the Zionists consider enemies. All of this was in line with the Zionist strategy laid out in the 1996 Netanyahu-commissioned Clean Break document authored by neocons led by 9/11 suspect Richard Perle — roughly the same group that authored the September 2001 blueprint for 9/11 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that openly called for the coming “New Pearl Harbor.”
Since the Kushner-Greenblatt-Friedman “peace plan” is really a war plan, any geopolitical analysis of its ramifications must analyze the conflict(s) that will accelerate once the plan is officially rolled out and rejected. Those conflicts will presumably be continuations of the ongoing, long-standing conflicts in the region.
Insofar as short- and medium-term impact is concerned, the Israeli government, dominated by ever-more-extreme right-wing hardliners, will intensify its program of confiscatory appropriation of land and ethnic cleansing. The Palestinians will be left with no choice but to continue their resistance, through peaceful demonstrations and rallies, the global BDS movement, and greater or lesser degrees of military resistance depending on their capabilities and strategic opportunities. The good news for Palestinians is that the shockingly insulting nature of Kushner’s Deal offers an opportunity to unify their ranks, ending or moderating the schism between the Palestinian Authority and the genuine resistance organizations including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Ramzy Baroud suggests that newfound Palestinian unity around the rejection of Kushner’s “deal” could lead to reconciliation between Hamas and non-corrupt elements of Fatah, followed by the resurrection of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Baroud writes that “the steps taken by Washington to isolate the PA through denying Palestinians urgently needed funds, revoking the PLO’s diplomatic status in Washington and shunning the PA as a political ally provide the opportunity to open the necessary political dialogue that could finally accomplish a serious Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Israel, too, by withholding tax money collected on behalf of the PA, has lost its last pressure card against Mahmoud Abbas and his government in Ramallah. At this point, there is little else that the US and Israel could do to exert more pressure on the Palestinians.”
The US-Zionist loss of leverage offers the Palestinians real opportunities. The late Alan Hart, a former BBC Mideast correspondent and back-channel peace negotiator, argued for several years before his death in January 2018 that the Palestinians’ best strategy would be “dissolving the impotent and corrupt PA and handing back to Israel full and complete responsibility and accountability for occupation.” Such a move, Hart wrote, “would not only impose significant financial, security, and other burdens on Israel, it would enable global discussion and debate about the conflict to be focused without distraction on the occupation and the need for it… to be ended.” This is essentially what Baroud is advocating in his recommendation that a unified PLO be revived. And now that the US is no longer bribing the PA to do Israel’s dirty work, such a scenario seems eminently feasible.
If the PA were dissolved, and Palestinians were to form a united resistance front, the resulting stand-off would cry out for arbitration — but not by the usual (American) suspects. All past “peace processes” have been abysmal failures for one overriding reason: Zionists dominate US media, finance, and politics, so Washington cannot be a reasonably neutral arbiter. Instead, it acts as an appendage of Zionism. Effective arbiters and negotiations-facilitators would have to represent entities that accept the broad international consensus as reflected in 70 years of UN resolutions. The United Nations General Assembly itself, or possibly a coalition of relatively independent nations, could be far more effective peace brokers than the Americans have ever been.
Along with unifying the Palestinians, Kushner’s “Fiasco of the Century” might also have the beneficial effect of unifying the relatively reasonable forces in the region in opposition to the plan, and in support of a newly united PLO presiding over the dissolution of the PA and demanding that the Zionists fulfill their obligations under international law. A broad coalition of nations in the Muslim East, led by the Axis of Resistance consisting of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, but also extending to such non-Axis members as Turkey, Qatar, and indeed any other regional state that can afford to forego Saudi bribes, will line up against Kushner’s ludicrous Deal. In the end, the Saudis and their evil twins the Emiratis will be left holding their bag of bribes that nobody wants.
The failure of the Deal could accelerate a regional realignment that has been developing during the drawdown of the war on Syria. Turkey and Qatar, both of which had originally been enthusiastic participants in the war on Syria, have been forced to rethink their priorities and strategies due to the triumph of the Syrian anti-regime-change struggle. Both countries will undoubtedly join the Axis of Resistance in heaping scorn on the Deal and supporting Palestinian rejection of it.
Egypt is something of a wild card. Though General ‘Abd al-Fattah al-Sisi was never an enthusiastic participant in the war on Syria, he has made many concessions to the Saudis and Zionists, and indeed has appeared as a Zionist puppet in many respects. But when he sees which way the wind is blowing, al-Sisi may be forced to distance himself from the Zionists and Saudis in the wake of the inevitable implosion of the Deal (together with Jordan and Morocco, Egypt had announced that it would go to Bahrain before the conference was postponed because of the political crisis in Israel over Netanyahu’s failure to cobble together a government).
Beneath the temporary alliances and re-alliances of geopolitics, there are important underlying material and ideological forces driving the long-term strategies of the oppressors and future liberators of Palestine. The first and most obvious is what Spengler aptly termed The Decline of the West. The past four centuries of Western post-Christian global dominance are ending, as demographic, economic, and technological changes shift the balance of global population and power to the south and east. In 2010 the US constituted a full 25% of global GDP. By 2050 that share is projected to fall below 10%. The EU will decline almost as much, from 23% to 12%. Similar declines will affect the rest of the Western world (Canada, Australia, New Zealand). The net result is that the West will decline from its 2010 status constituting well over half of the world economy, to a much more modest share of less than one-quarter of the global total.
Western decline is auspicious for Palestine, because Zionism is a purely Western project. It is the most extreme, audacious, and tenacious manifestation of Western imperialism and colonialism. So as the West declines in wealth, power, and influence, and the formerly colonized nations of the South and East rise to parity with their former masters, the Zionist project will inevitably approach its expiration date. The Zionists, of course, know this full well. They may be evil, arrogant, and shortsighted, but they are not stupid. So they are working to partner with such rising eastern (and non-Muslim) states as Russia, China, and India, and to promote Islamophobia in those and other countries in service to their fabricated “clash of civilizations” agenda (inciting global Islamophobia in service to Zionism was the long-term strategic purpose of the 9/11 false-flag operation). So the Zionists have long been planning for the difficult day when their American stooges stop propping them up. On that day, coalitions of other nations will become more important than the unipolar USA in brokering the conflict in Colonized Palestine. With the epochal failure of Kushner’s stillborn Deal, that day may arrive sooner rather than later.
The West’s ongoing decline is inseparable from a global ideological crisis consisting of the collapse of post-Christian humanism and its great narrative of universal liberation through material progress. Communism, the most radical branch of post-Christian humanism, imploded in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Its replacement, neoliberalism, no longer commands much loyalty; its failures are evidenced by the accelerating gap between rich and poor, and by renewed interest in reactionary ideologies including various conservatisms, fascisms, and tribal petits récits. The only universalist ideology that seems poised to offer a viable alternative to post-Christian humanism is the religion of Islam, whose destiny is inseparable from the destiny of Palestine.
So the ideological lines are being drawn for the next, global phase of the struggle for Palestine. On one side, the side of truth and justice, are the universalists whose universal ethics (such as abstract truth and justice) apply equally to everyone everywhere. Some of these universalists still think of themselves as secular humanists. The great ex-Israeli, ex-Jewish musician and philosopher Gilad Atzmon offers a notable example of rigorous universalist humanism in action. But since hegemonic post-Christian secular humanism overall is in decline, while Islam is undergoing both a demographic expansion and an intellectual and spiritual awakening, a growing share of the principled anti-Zionist movement will be Islamic in orientation. This Islamic movement for the liberation of Palestine, exemplified by Imam Khomeini’s proclamation of Quds Day, will grow increasingly important.
The Zionists understand that what they are doing flies in the face of universal morality and ethics; it can only be justified by invoking doctrines of racial superiority, tribalism, and what Gilad Atzmon calls chosenness. They understand that anyone who espouses universal morality and ethics, and applies that perspective to Palestine, will eventually become an enemy of Zionism. So the Zionists have determined that at the end of the day, liberal humanists and Muslims — in other words, universalists — will generally be their enemies, whereas those who reject universal morality and ethics — meaning those tribalists and nationalists who act purely out of self-interest — can potentially be coopted into supporting Zionism. Acting on the basis of this understanding, the Zionists have taken the counterintuitive step of supporting movements that The Saker characterizes as “national Zionism,” even though many of these movements are neo-fascist and actually or potentially “anti-Semitic.”
Clearly the Zionists are planning ahead for the coming multipolar world. That world will be characterized by proliferating nationalisms, shifting coalitions of nations banding together temporarily based on self-interest rather than ideological affiliation, and a contest between universalist Islam and particularist nationalisms for the hearts and minds of global citizens, including those in the Muslim-majority countries. By demonizing Islam and holding it up as a scapegoat against which nationalistic Hindus, Chinese, Russians, Burmese, and of course Westerners can seek to unify their populations, the Zionists hope to keep their dagger plunged deep in the heart of the Muslim East.
The Muslim counter-strategy will have to perform a delicate balancing act between appealing to specifically Islamic unity on the one hand, and universal values on the other. The resolution of this apparent paradox is to recognize that Islam is the world’s final authentic divine revelation, making it the ultimate repository of universal values. As the false, pseudo-universalist values of Western secular materialist progressivist humanism recede, Islam will be poised to fill the void. But only a sophisticated understanding of Islam, as opposed to the rigid and obscurantist readings that some Islamic movements have embraced, will be capable of uniting a critical mass of humanity.
The biggest failing of Islamic movements and other modern liberation movements in the Muslim East has been their inability to forge effective alliances across communal and ideological boundaries. This problem has been most obvious among Salafis and other self-styled Sunni political movements including the Muslim Brotherhood. But the conflict bet-ween particular interpretations and practices and universalist Islamic aspirations has not been limited to particular groups; instead it has been ubiquitous throughout the Muslim-majority world.
If Makkah that houses the Ka‘bah, the first House of Allah on earth and the original qiblah of Islam, symbolizes Islam’s status as a particular and culminating din among other dins, Jerusalem al-Quds, the ancient qiblah, symbolizes universalist “islam with a lowercase i” and the universal submission to God it embodies. The Isra’ and Mi‘raj of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), culminated with the Prophet ascending from Jerusalem al-Quds into God’s presence by way of meetings with previous prophets including Moses and Jesus (Å). Islam’s universalist mission as a perfected din that must nonetheless protect and coexist with other faith communities, especially Christianity and Judaism, is still identified with the ancient qiblah, Jerusalem al-Quds. Ironically, that holy city is now colonized by arrogant usurpers who, believing themselves superior to others, have no interest in coexistence.
The Zionist colonization of Palestine is the product of the weaponized usury of the West’s dominant international banking cartel. Indeed, the Zionist entity was created by the Rothschild family and their associates (recall that the Balfour Declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild, who brought the US into World War I to assure a British victory in exchange for Britain’s handing Palestine over to the usurers).
The Qur’an, for its part, declares war on usurers (2:279). Indeed, usurers are the only sinners against whom God and His Messenger (pbuh) have literally declared war! Therefore, the struggle to liberate Palestine is not just on behalf of those who have been driven out of their homes unjustly for saying “Our Lord is Allah” (22:40). Palestine is also the epicenter of the global struggle against usury, and should be understood as such by Muslims and others who recognize the rottenness and injustice of the usury-based private fractional-reserve system of currency creation.
Those nations that have freed themselves from the Western-based international banking cartel are in a better position to forthrightly and effectively support the Palestinian resistance. And since Zionist power ultimately depends on the vast fortunes of the bankers, and the media outlets and politicians those bankers are able to bribe and buy, the defeat of the banking cartel will bring about the defeat of the Zionists.
Since Muslims are required by their din to abjure usury and to support God and His Messenger’s war on usurers, it would be reasonable to assume that all Muslim-majority countries would do their utmost to exit the sphere of influence of the international banking cartel and to develop non-usurious currency systems. It would also be reasonable to assume that this struggle could and should become the centerpiece of the movement for Islamic unity. After all, the history of the European Union has demonstrated that even a cluster of perpetually warring nations with different languages and religions can unite in a common market and adopt a common currency. The Islamic world, with its common religion, common use of Arabic among intellectuals with aspirations to religious education, and common cultural values, should certainly be able to unite into a common market with a common gold-backed public currency system.
This prospect of Islamic economic unity around non-usury commodity currency is the ultimate nightmare of the Zionist banking czars who dominate the Western “New World Order.” A pan-Islamic commodity currency would allow an economically-unified Islamic Ummah to radically improve its position in the terms-of-trade struggle over energy and other resources. It would eventually provide the Ummah with the economic, technological, and military strength to defeat Zionism and also protect oppressed Muslim minorities in other regions as well.
Universal values of truth and justice, preserved and embodied in God’s final revelation to humanity, necessarily oppose the arrogance and cruelty of Zionism, and the mendacity and greed of the Zionist usurers. The implosion of the Zionists’ “Deal of the Century” will offer numerous opportunities to unite and empower people who love truth and justice, not only in Palestine and the rest of the Muslim East but throughout the world.